ArticleHeliyon2025
Self-citation pattern among world's top 2 % of the scientists.
Article in Heliyon, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- National-, institutional-, and individual-level determinants of dental research excellence: an analysis of Stanford-Elsevier lists of the top 2% scholars worldwide (2017-2023).Frontiers in oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although self-citation is a common practice among scholars, its impact and significance remain under scrutiny within the academic community. The current study aimed to provide a detailed analysis and ranking of the top 2 % scientists on self-citation, ranked by Stanford University researchers. Data extraction and organisation were performed between January and February 2024. Self-citation percentages were collected for authors belonging to 20 fields and 174 subfields using Excel spreadsheets. Entities were categorised into quartiles based on their self-citation percentages and rankings were assigned accordingly. Comparative analyses were conducted to assess the impact of self-citations on overall rankings. The study focused on data published by a group of researchers from Stanford University regarding the top 2 % of researchers, analysing the career-long records of 204,643 scholars and 210,198 scholars for the most recent year, 2022. Notably, in the single-year analysis, among the top 20 countries, approximately eight (40 %) exhibited self-citation percentages exceeding the average of 25.96 %. The self-citation percentages ranged from 4.47 % in Economics and Business to 20.88 % in Physics and Astronomy. Regarding career-long analysis, the percentage of self-citations ranged from 22.84 % in Poland to 41.31 % in Armenia, with significant drop in rankings among most entities when self-citations were excluded. These findings highlight the dramatic impact of self-citation exclusion on the rankings of the top 2 % of the researchers, underscoring the critical importance of accounting for self-citation in ranking assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.